5 ms·

The biggest uncertainty is how many people would die if the virus spreads unchecked. 20,000 Americans? 2 million Americans? Both are possible, but with two orde

by lacker 7y ago

The biggest uncertainty is how many people would die if the virus spreads unchecked. 20,000 Americans? 2 million Americans? Both are possible, but with two orders of magnitude difference in effect, it is nearly impossible to estimate things like net economic impact of doing nothing.

xeromal 7y ago
You can definitely argue that stopping all deliveries in the US could have a more drastic effect. No one is self sustaining any more. No one has a farm. If the grocery stores are empty, more will die. I'm sure of it.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  That's why neither of these are stopped. In both Wuhan and Italy, the food were and is still available, and deliveries work fine.
  - xeromal 7y ago
    I guess I'm speaking from a Los Angeles perspective. Our stores are literally empty for most staples and any reduction in deliveries is going to make this an actual problem.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      How long has the panic shopping been going on? In Poland, when it started, it cleared out the basic long shelf life goods (rice, pasta, etc.) and TP from most of the cheaper stores for about two to three days. For some reason, some kinds of meat also disappeared. But it seems to be going back to normal now. If after couple of days your stores are still empty of most staples, it suggests some serious problems higher up in the supply chain.
    - yongjik 7y ago
      But that's not due to delivery disruption - nobody stopped the trucks, and nobody's planning to. It's due to people hoarding (either by panic or greed). If groceries aren't back to normal in a week, I can easily see state troopers mobilized to guard every supermarket and make sure nobody buys twenty boxes of Bounty. Yes, it would look silly and would grate the nerve of free market enthusiasts, but in an emergency you go for effectiveness, not prettiness.
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        There's so much food people can reasonably hoard, so unless everyone has really large apartments or are stocking personal fallout shelters, if the disruption lasts longer than a week, it suggests the problem lies elsewhere. Possibilities include local supply chain disruption, or abundance of "entrepreneurs" keen to do arbitrage on staples.
- nullc 7y ago
  It takes a pretty long time to die from starvation. Doubly so for your average American. :)
  - xeromal 7y ago
    haha ya. I'm seeing this as a potential diet. :P
  - woodandsteel 7y ago
    But the weaker people are from starvation, the more likely they are to die from the coronavirus.
- nwallin 7y ago
  No one is suggesting food deliveries should stop. If you deliver food, lockdowns don't apply to you, not even in Wuhan. Same with medical personnel. If you work for the water or electric company, you'll still be going to work. On the other hand, nobody's gonna die from the lack of a haircut anytime soon. Lots of people (myself included) can work remote.
ptero 7y ago
Anything is possible, but unless this batch has been scientifically engineered for maximum impact, killing 3 times more people than the spanish flu seems unlikely. My 2c.
duckMuppet 7y ago
Yet they close NCAAA and NBA games while an airport like JFK still passes 2 million passengers a month, let alone transit centers such as Amtrak, greyhound, or local subway stations. Even at a 2 - 4% mortality rate, the sheer panic over this is nonsense
- nostromo 7y ago
  People are now panicking about the panic and subsequent overreaction. I must say in Seattle it’s a little alarming to go to the store and to literally see no meat, no bread, no milk, no soap. And I’ve already had friends in hospitality lose their jobs. I think the UK’s keep calm and carry on approach is the right way - but it’s hard to turn back from a panic.
  - tanilama 7y ago
    UK approach is suicide, their health care system is going to break down magnificently under the pressure of swarm of sick people, or they are going to ask people to stay at home and pray once sick. I don't see that works, people will riot.
  - dillonmckay 7y ago
    Honestly, I think the people losing their jobs now are in a much better position than those facing uncertainty or not realizing it could happen to them. Start getting unemployment now before that system becomes overwhelmed. I am not optimistic for state and local government to implement remote work.
- marcinzm 7y ago
  >Even at a 2 - 4% mortality rate, the sheer panic over this is nonsense The fear is that if the health system collapses the mortality rate could be even higher.
  - sidlls 7y ago
    If? Our health care system isn't equipped to handle a large-scale outbreak. People are panicking, and in really dumb ways, but there are two rational fears right now: 1) fear of our health care system not being able to cope; 2) fear of the idiot-panickers hoarding everything for no good reason and leaving others unable to buy even basic necessities.
nullc 7y ago
The mortality rate will be much higher the more overloaded we allow the hospitals to become. CDC's 'worst case' numbers are 1.7 million dead, but CDC is assuming a 1% CFR which is the rate we observe in places where hospitals are not overloaded. In Italy-- which has more somewhat more ICU beds per capita than the US does and is a about 1.5 weeks ahead of the bay area in progression-- the current CFR is 6.8% (which is likely an underestimate because exponential growth means that most people who are diagnosed haven't been infected long enough to have died yet) and the resolved CFR is 43% (which is likely an overestimate, in part because people are dying faster than they are recovering in Italy now because they're going untreated). [NOTE: CFR is not IFR, and the CDC analysis uses CFR and separately accounts for the fact that only a small portion of infections result in hospitalizations] The best way to mitigate economic effects is to act stronger earlier, exponential growth means that little improvements earlier are more impactful than vastly more aggressive measures later. After halting big public events, bars closures have probably some of the best ratios of reduced communicability to economic harm, especially given the data showing that young people are carriers are much higher rates than older populations. Many people's informal observations that even last night many bars were very busy. I keep hearing from younger people that if it were an issue 'they' would close down and so concern must be over-hyped. This perception makes it more important to take stronger measures.
- alexis_fr 7y ago
  I can confirm: Since France’s president has closed bars, the psychosis became widespread, people now take real measures. Before that, everyone was keeping business as usual awaiting instructions, which is the worst way to let the epidemic grow, and they were even mocking those who took precautions as either racists, or weaklings. Ensuring the population is in « concerned » state is the first step, and only closing bars allowed people to visualize the emergency. Example: For the few hours after announcing, the « McDonnalds » hashtag was trending. Which says a lot.

by lacker 7y ago

xeromal 7y ago

You can definitely argue that stopping all deliveries in the US could have a more drastic effect. No one is self sustaining any more. No one has a farm. If the grocery stores are empty, more will die. I'm sure of it.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
That's why neither of these are stopped. In both Wuhan and Italy, the food were and is still available, and deliveries work fine.
- xeromal 7y ago
  I guess I'm speaking from a Los Angeles perspective. Our stores are literally empty for most staples and any reduction in deliveries is going to make this an actual problem.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    How long has the panic shopping been going on? In Poland, when it started, it cleared out the basic long shelf life goods (rice, pasta, etc.) and TP from most of the cheaper stores for about two to three days. For some reason, some kinds of meat also disappeared. But it seems to be going back to normal now. If after couple of days your stores are still empty of most staples, it suggests some serious problems higher up in the supply chain.
  - yongjik 7y ago
    But that's not due to delivery disruption - nobody stopped the trucks, and nobody's planning to. It's due to people hoarding (either by panic or greed). If groceries aren't back to normal in a week, I can easily see state troopers mobilized to guard every supermarket and make sure nobody buys twenty boxes of Bounty. Yes, it would look silly and would grate the nerve of free market enthusiasts, but in an emergency you go for effectiveness, not prettiness.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      There's so much food people can reasonably hoard, so unless everyone has really large apartments or are stocking personal fallout shelters, if the disruption lasts longer than a week, it suggests the problem lies elsewhere. Possibilities include local supply chain disruption, or abundance of "entrepreneurs" keen to do arbitrage on staples.
nullc 7y ago
It takes a pretty long time to die from starvation. Doubly so for your average American. :)
- xeromal 7y ago
  haha ya. I'm seeing this as a potential diet. :P
- woodandsteel 7y ago
  But the weaker people are from starvation, the more likely they are to die from the coronavirus.
nwallin 7y ago
No one is suggesting food deliveries should stop. If you deliver food, lockdowns don't apply to you, not even in Wuhan. Same with medical personnel. If you work for the water or electric company, you'll still be going to work. On the other hand, nobody's gonna die from the lack of a haircut anytime soon. Lots of people (myself included) can work remote.

ptero 7y ago

Anything is possible, but unless this batch has been scientifically engineered for maximum impact, killing 3 times more people than the spanish flu seems unlikely. My 2c.

duckMuppet 7y ago

Yet they close NCAAA and NBA games while an airport like JFK still passes 2 million passengers a month, let alone transit centers such as Amtrak, greyhound, or local subway stations. Even at a 2 - 4% mortality rate, the sheer panic over this is nonsense

nostromo 7y ago
People are now panicking about the panic and subsequent overreaction. I must say in Seattle it’s a little alarming to go to the store and to literally see no meat, no bread, no milk, no soap. And I’ve already had friends in hospitality lose their jobs. I think the UK’s keep calm and carry on approach is the right way - but it’s hard to turn back from a panic.
- tanilama 7y ago
  UK approach is suicide, their health care system is going to break down magnificently under the pressure of swarm of sick people, or they are going to ask people to stay at home and pray once sick. I don't see that works, people will riot.
- dillonmckay 7y ago
  Honestly, I think the people losing their jobs now are in a much better position than those facing uncertainty or not realizing it could happen to them. Start getting unemployment now before that system becomes overwhelmed. I am not optimistic for state and local government to implement remote work.
marcinzm 7y ago
>Even at a 2 - 4% mortality rate, the sheer panic over this is nonsense The fear is that if the health system collapses the mortality rate could be even higher.
- sidlls 7y ago
  If? Our health care system isn't equipped to handle a large-scale outbreak. People are panicking, and in really dumb ways, but there are two rational fears right now: 1) fear of our health care system not being able to cope; 2) fear of the idiot-panickers hoarding everything for no good reason and leaving others unable to buy even basic necessities.

nullc 7y ago

The mortality rate will be much higher the more overloaded we allow the hospitals to become. CDC's 'worst case' numbers are 1.7 million dead, but CDC is assuming a 1% CFR which is the rate we observe in places where hospitals are not overloaded. In Italy-- which has more somewhat more ICU beds per capita than the US does and is a about 1.5 weeks ahead of the bay area in progression-- the current CFR is 6.8% (which is likely an underestimate because exponential growth means that most people who are diagnosed haven't been infected long enough to have died yet) and the resolved CFR is 43% (which is likely an overestimate, in part because people are dying faster than they are recovering in Italy now because they're going untreated). [NOTE: CFR is not IFR, and the CDC analysis uses CFR and separately accounts for the fact that only a small portion of infections result in hospitalizations] The best way to mitigate economic effects is to act stronger earlier, exponential growth means that little improvements earlier are more impactful than vastly more aggressive measures later. After halting big public events, bars closures have probably some of the best ratios of reduced communicability to economic harm, especially given the data showing that young people are carriers are much higher rates than older populations. Many people's informal observations that even last night many bars were very busy. I keep hearing from younger people that if it were an issue 'they' would close down and so concern must be over-hyped. This perception makes it more important to take stronger measures.

alexis_fr 7y ago
I can confirm: Since France’s president has closed bars, the psychosis became widespread, people now take real measures. Before that, everyone was keeping business as usual awaiting instructions, which is the worst way to let the epidemic grow, and they were even mocking those who took precautions as either racists, or weaklings. Ensuring the population is in « concerned » state is the first step, and only closing bars allowed people to visualize the emergency. Example: For the few hours after announcing, the « McDonnalds » hashtag was trending. Which says a lot.